Marc Challenges Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1625)]

I think we should have both 'signals' _and_ 'perceptions'. A perception
being _ANY_ conscious thought, or idea. A 'signal' could and would account > for all control done _without_ consciousness.

How would you go about testing this idea?

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

In a message dated 3/26/2005 4:26:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET writes:

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1625)]

I think we should have both ‘signals’ and ‘perceptions’. A
perception
being ANY conscious thought, or idea. A ‘signal’ could and would
account > for all control done without consciousness.

How would you go about testing this idea?

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

First, I would much prefer you refer to my idea’s rather than my person.

You might also want to state the truth as you know it. This is Bruce challenging Marc. After all I threw out a proposition. If you actually have a counter-claim I’d love to hear it. If you feel my thoughts are misplaced, I would like to know why you feel this to be so.

It doesn’t much matter who postulates what idea, the real issue is if it provides any value or help to a problem. Any idea will stand or fall based on the utility others find or don’t find in it. WHO it comes from is immaterial. That is one reason I no longer put a header on my posts.

Those who read my posts either like or dislike my ideas. That is one reason I continue to post and will continue to post to CSGnet REGARDLESS of who might actually respond to me.

It should not matter, but does unfortunately, who it’s from. WHAT is said, is the key, and hopefully with that an exchange of idea’s and data.

Of course if your post was merely a personal challenge to me, your wasting your time. I’m always open to the idea’s of others. That of course does not mean I will accept the ideas of others, but I do seek to falsify my idea’s. Unfortunately some view this process here on CSGnet as hubris, or worse, as an attempt to destroy something. (i.e. PCT) But I am actually trying very hard to build a theory of human behavior that moves toward the truth, and NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL will ever possess it. All we can all hope to do is approximate it and if we are unwilling to share our idea’s, rethink or mistakes, and think critically we are all doomed to ignorance.

So to answer your question if it was asked with sincerity;

Test what? That I chose to categorize something into two distinct entities for the purpose of some clarity?

A ‘test’ would be quite simple. For my purposes if you can either think of it or feel it, then it is a ‘perception’. Everything else, for the time being, or at least until we have some more info and understanding of exactly what we are actually dealing with here, and would be considered a ‘signal’. That is, all conscious thought are ‘perceptions’, All non-conscious control processes involve ‘signals’

That would mean that if we were dealing with biological control systems at the cellular level for instance, we may not either be able to ‘feel’ a specific process taking place nor even think about it in order for it to be happening, this would be represented by the use of ‘signals’.

This categorization would benefit PCT because it would put the notion of ‘perceptions’ into the realm of accepted meaning in neuroscience and the social sciences. Learning new ideas is difficult enough do we have to reinvent a way of adding 2 + 2 = 4.

To toss this back into your lap, what advantages do you see in keeping the definition as is?

Marc

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1831)]


To toss this back into your lap, what advantages do you see in keeping the definition as is?

If it aint broke.... Are we to conclude than conscious control does not involve neural signals?

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

In a message dated 3/26/2005 6:33:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET writes:

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1831)]

To toss this back into your lap, what advantages do you see in keeping
the definition as is?

If it aint broke… Are we to conclude than conscious control does not
involve neural signals?
Yes, and a great deal more and that is the problem. The question you raise is a strawman. It is a strawman because the issue, as I raised it, was NOT an issue of whether or not a perception was a neural signal.

Your attempt at trying to trivialize my proposal shows me you had no desire to communicate honestly and you were simply looking to poke holes, and mock.

I’m glad you see no issue’s. It is even more evident that you are secure in your own gross ignorance. So be it, I will not be a party to your nonsense.

“Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known”
Montaigne

“Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.”
Richard Hooker (1554? - 1600)
English theologian.

“It’s not what people don’t know that is the problem. It’s what people know that ain’t so, that creates all the fuss.”

Will Rogers

“Knowledge is finite, ignorance is infinite”
Karl Popper

···

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1900)]

···

On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Marc Abrams wrote:


It is even more evident that you are secure in your own gross�ignorance. So be it, I will not be a party to your nonsense.

Ditto.

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

Glad we see eye to eye. But if your ‘ditto’ was not simply another attempt at a smart alecky remark, why did you respond to me in the first place?

Who asked you to be ‘a party to my nonsense’? You decided you wanted to be.

I’m afraid that doesn’t say much for either what you say, or how you think.

But at least we firmly understand one another now, don’t we?

Big Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help””

Ronald Reagan

In a message dated 3/26/2005 7:01:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, bruce_gregory@SBCGLOBAL.NET writes:

···

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0326.1900)]

On Mar 26, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Marc Abrams wrote:

It is even more evident that you are secure in your own
gross ignorance. So be it, I will not be a party to your nonsense.

Ditto.

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0327.0828)]

You forgot Joe McCarthy.

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

Never say I’m not thoughtful, and giving.

Seems you just can’t either stay away, or get enough of my ‘nonsense’.

[From Bruce Gregory (2005.0327.0828)]

You forgot Joe McCarthy.

A true believer knows the solution before he understands the problem.

Sorry, but I was fortunate enough to get two of your favorites together in one snap-shot. Would you like an 8x10 of this one possibly for your office?

Untitled1.jpg

Big Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help””

Ronald Reagan